Nightclub owner Michel Harper has won a High Court battle against Guildford Borough Council – leaving it facing a £30,000 bill.

The freehold owner of the Casino, Players’ Lounge and Bar Mambo, in Onslow Street, had challenged the council’s licensing department for inappropriately rejecting applications for a number of ‘shadow’ licences on the premises.

Mr Harper claimed that his companies, Extreme and Star Oyster, made the applications in order to protect licences for the venues, should he need to take over control following the exit of the company that currently runs them, Luminar Leisure Ltd.

The licences would also take him one step closer to his plan for a £20 million redevelopment of the site into a multi-storey nightclub and table dancing spot.

The council rejected the licences before discussing them at committee, claiming they did not comply with the Licensing Act. It also refused to return the £625 in fees paid for each application.

However, Mr Harper took his case to the Administrative Court, presided over by Justice Turner, who ruled on Monday (July 22) in his favour.

As well as reassessing the applications, the council must cover its own and Mr Harper’s court expenses, estimated to reach around £30,000.

Throughout the case, the strained relationship between the licensing team, led by David Curtis-Botting, and Mr Harper was made clear, with Mr Harper saying treatment was "unfair" and "inconsistent".

In his ruling, Justice Turner said: “An unhappy aspect of this case is what could be described, perhaps euphemistically, as a lack of empathy between Mr Michel Harper, the owner of Star, and Mr Curtis-Botting.

“This case is not, however, about personalities and although I have read with care the background history, I must remind myself that there are no express allegations of bias, in the legal sense, against Mr Curtis-Botting.”

He blamed the council for breaching its delegation policy in allowing Mr Curtis-Botting to take a decision on the applications without a committee.

He also criticised Mr Curtis-Botting for his method of rejecting the applications, adding: “I was, and remain, concerned that he made a mere mental note of limited discrepancies and thereafter premptorily cancelled (or refused any consideration of) these applications without ever volunteering which discrep-ancies he had identified.

“There was no justification for Guildford to act in breach of its delegation policy. The public and claimants had a legitimate expectation that this policy would be followed.”

Mr Harper said: “I am extremely pleased and hopefully this will be the beginning of progress between ourselves and the council. This is public money and it will have cost the council several thousands but we had no other choice but to progress to this.”

A council spokesman said: “Our view was that Star Oyster Ltd was not, in any way, involved in carrying out the business and therefore it was not appropriate or correct in law to issue these additional licences. Independent legal advice supported us in this view.

“The review has provided some clarity in an area that was not previously clear and there is no suggestion the council was in any way unreasonable in taking the approach it did.

“We will continue to deal with applications from Mr Harper’s companies in accordance with the interpretation of the law in this case.”